Chapter 11: (continued) The Root Cause of the Denial of a Feminine Holy Spirit

The enormous difference between what Scripture suggests regarding gender within the Godhead and the various mutually-inconsistent interpretations of Scripture as practiced by our mainstream religions indicates that modern Christianity considered the predecessor religions, despite their similarity of theme, to be the false and morally degenerate initial product of mankind’s ever-upward struggle for improvement. They were labeled “pagan” and dismissed as unworthy of consideration.

In my opinion the false notions of evolution and uniformity made a generous contribution to this perception, supporting the notion, in sharp contradiction to Scripture, that as mankind emerged from the swamp and its simple lifeforms it began to perceive the existence of God but with a crude and limited vision of what the nature of that God might be. Under that misapprehension, the refinement of those earlier religions into the perception of nobility associated with our own understanding of God required millennia of upward “evolution”.

In contrast to this view as supported by the false paradigms of evolution and uniformity, these supposedly degenerate religions of the past likely represent vestiges of an originally coherent understanding of God possessed by our ancient forebears. This understanding also probably included a detailed knowledge of Jesus Christ and His future mission on earth. Modern Christianity, having accepted the falsehoods of evolution and the enormous time periods associated with evolution and uniformity, is largely incapable of comprehending what may well be the true root of these earlier religions and of how that early understanding may have been corrupted in the aftermath of the visitation on earth of violent cosmic intrusions.

Accompanying the misperception of Christianity’s true roots is a corresponding misunderstanding of moral degeneracy, wherein the sexual shame associated with mankind’s fall from grace infected man’s perception of sexuality. Burdened by sexual shame and not comprehending that its source was within ourselves rather than God, theologians caused all sexuality to be lumped together as beneath any association whatever with God or religion. The various offshoots of Christianity dealt with this misperception of immorality in different ways, but in common they all removed any trace of sexuality from God or His interface with mankind. Insisting upon a New Testament version of the Holy Spirit in masculine terms in contradiction to the earlier Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit as a feminine Entity, they visualized either a genderless or all-male Godhead that brooked no notion of a primarily female Holy Spirit despite the logical ease with which a male pronoun may be applied to a functionally female Entity, and even more significantly, in contradiction to the Siniatic Palimpsest, the oldest known version of the Gospel and closest to the Gospel events, the one that Paul was believed to have referred to, and in its original form has Jesus Christ in John 14:26 referring to the Holy Spirit as feminine.

It is tempting for the doubter of my assertion of the negative impact of the theory of evolution on Christianity to point to the obvious discrepancy between the early formulation of Christianity’s basic tenets, which began within decades of the Church’s birth at the first Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection, and the several hundred years that had elapsed before Darwin proposed his theory of evolution. By the time that Darwin arrived on the scene, Christianity already had a long-established view of a weakly-gendered or entirely genderless Godhead. The Catholic Church, moreover, already had elevated Mary to the lofty position that she enjoys today in the Catholic faith and was insisting upon her perpetual virginity.

But Darwin wasn’t the first to hold to the theory of evolution. His primary contribution to this falsehood was the proposition of what appeared, at a time when little was known of the molecular marvels associated with life, to be a viable mechanism. Speculation about evolution was a reasonably common topic in pre-Christian Greek thought.

As a matter of fact, it is difficult to over-estimate the influence of Grecian thought and customs on the development of the early Christian Church. The root of virtually all of the early heresies that invaded the developing Church was the Greek notion of all goodness residing exclusively in the spiritual plane; the material world, in contrast was considered to be evil to the core. The Church Fathers were quick to denounce the associated heresies of Gnosticism and Docetism, but despite the vehemence of their attempts to quell the intrusion of these doctrines into their faith, they couldn’t manage to rid themselves entirely of the notions. Their situation in this regard is similar to what we now face in attempting to rid ourselves of our uniformitarian past: despite the recent acknowledgment that past catastrophes played a significant part in the history of the Earth, our dating of many of these events relies on methodology derived under uniformitarian presuppositions.

While openly denouncing the Gnostic heresies, our Church Fathers continued to embrace a basic tenet of Gnostic thought: the notion that sexuality of any kind was base and beneath the spiritual realm. Consequently, they pasteurized their faith by purging it of all traces of sexuality. They did so in blindness of Scripture and in gross violation of its general tenor.

In summary, what the Church Fathers down through the history of Christianity did in error was their allowance of secular thinking to intrude into the Christian life. A major aspect of this admittance of secular penetration is that they first opened the door to the influence of Greek thought and customs on early Christian thinking, particularly in their perception of the primacy of the individual and of sexuality as being intrinsically evil. This perception has been a constant factor from the beginning of the Church Age all they way to the present and, in fact, was supported by the false pseudo-scientific notions of the past few centuries, including evolution and uniformitarianism, which remain deeply entrenched in secular thought to this day. This perversion of true and innocent Christianity was the direct result of the failure of Christian spokespersons to fully accept what God did in His kind and sacrificial restoration of the human race.

But if Christian thought is so deviant from truth in that area, one may ask, what remains of the truth of the entire Gospel? What assurance does the Christian have that he can put his faith in any of his religion? Most fortunately, Scripture itself remains intact. It turns out that while there are numerous confirmations of the inerrancy of Scripture, the same can’t be said about the interpretation of it.

Scripture itself claims inerrancy. According to Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 and Peter in 2 Peter 1:20 and 21,

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”


          “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

Scripture itself backs up these statements, first by the supernatural fulfillment of prophecy in great detail centuries and even millennia after they were written, and also by exceedingly intricate manner in which the words of some human writers of Scripture dovetail with those of others, all of whom were directed in their writing by the same Holy Spirit. And then, of course, there is the equally supernatural self-consistency of Scripture. The objections of those who claim otherwise invariably reveal their insufficient research into the topics they question and their own shallowness of thought. A brief commentary on the inerrancy of Scripture is furnished in Appendix 3.

But the interpretation of Scripture, even by some heavy-hitting theologians, cannot be said to enjoy the same inerrancy that Scripture itself does. At times even the most highly-motivated and God-fearing of individuals fall short of the research required to uncover some important Biblical truths. At other times they lack the clarity of insight demanded by a Scriptural passage.   At still other times their own biases and agendas creep into their absorption of Scripture.

Like the inerrancy of Scripture, the errancy of interpretation can be backed up with numerous proofs.

It was from the two major mutually-supporting reasons noted earlier of sexual shame and a misinterpretation of history that led the Catholic Church to place onto Mary the attributes that belonged to the Holy Spirit, and that led the Protestant Church into an indifference toward the issue, replacing readily-available knowledge with a casual attitude that the subject was unknowable. This enormous difference in understanding between the Catholic and Protestant Churches clearly demonstrates that at least one of these Churches, and probably both, are in error.

It was the agenda of conforming to established Church doctrine that led the translators of the King James Bible to replace “she” with “thou” in Isaiah 51:9 and 10, despite the clear grammatical incorrectness of that translation. It was the agenda of never having seen a green horse that led these translators to translate the Greek word “chloros” into “pale” instead of the correct word “green”. Further, it was the agenda of cleansing the Church of sexuality that led them to replace feminine references to the Holy Spirit with masculine ones.

The proliferation of various Christian sects throughout the history of the Church and around the earth cries of error in understanding, not only from the breakaway sects but more importantly from the mainstream organizations from which they parted company. The current falling away of many mainstream Churches into apostasy screams even louder of error.

The bottom line is that while Scripture is sacred, Church doctrine is not. Adam’s race for the most part is still fallen despite the Church forgiven, and personal agendas and misunderstanding have and will continue to creep into many Christian Churches along with influential but unsaved individuals who pose as Christians but keep alive the saying of satan, “Did God really say- – -?”

The denial of the femininity of the Holy Spirit is thus placed on the doorstep of sexual shame, which itself is a direct result of mankind’s fall from grace. Of all the possible reasons for Church authorities to maintain that denial in the face of increasing dissemination of the Scriptural opposition to it, the most appalling is the thought expressed by a theologian and former Methodist minister:

“Ministers can dance around all they want with their mumbo jumbo but the “her” cannot be satisfactorily explained other than by a feminine Holy Spirit. I know ministers since I was one of them for about eight years decades ago. Today I know denominational ministers that firmly believe the Holy Spirit is feminine but will not come out of the closet for fear. . . I have had the article on the feminine gender of the Holy Spirit on the Internet since 2001. At that time there were only two others on the subject. One of those two was the one by Ted [Meisner of La Ermita]. Today there are hundreds of articles on the subject from around the globe and within the last year the hits on my feminine gender Holy Spirit site have more than doubled. Yet no denomination has dared to proclaim it.”

He then goes on to compare such lack of courage with the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, quoting from Matthew 23:13:

“I think about them as Jesus thought about the Pharisees:

“’But woe unto scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: